- Utoy Cruz:"i never thought Jews hated the Lord Jesus this much until I saw your video, I just know they do not believe in him as our savior...﻿"- MorningDew Reynolds:"What else would you expect from the SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN? You should read what is written in their Talmud about our precious Savior Yahushua.﻿"- tanny bash:"Just shows who is in control of the Christian USA the Zionist Nazi Jews how they insult and mock Jesus and his mother Mary and carry on getting billions in aid to Israel."- from the comments below the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yle_qeeOIMA

Paul GrubachIAs the distinguished scholar, Noam Chomsky, has noted elsewhere, even in open democratic societies such as ours, which lack the cruder forms of ideological control, there is still a public orthodoxy: a set of assumptions, ideas, and doctrines which is rarely, if ever, questioned. /1 A key aspect of the public orthodoxy is the psychosocial taboo. The latter can be defined as a private emotional aversion and a public social ban attached to certain modes of thinking and public criticism.

Specifically, if a belief deemed to be a component of the public orthodoxy is rejected, or even questioned, in public, the offender is liable to be labeled as "evil" and be subjected to social ostracism. There is a private, internal counterpart to this public inhibition if an individual who accepts the reigning public orthodoxy rejects, or questions, one of its tenets privately, he will likely subject himself to feelings of guilt approaching a kind of a holy dread." In the words of Sigmund Freud, "The violation of the taboo makes the offender himself taboo." /2

Examples of societies with public orthodoxies, which are in turn protected by psychosocial taboos, are not hard to find. For instance, consider the status of the Catholic Church and its theological doctrines in Medieval Europe and during the era of the Inquisition. To question the cardinal tenets of Christian belief was to risk not only ostracism but imprisonment, torture, and death. A more contemporary example is the case of Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union. Every Soviet citizen is aware that to criticize the Communist party or its ideological doctrines exposes one to charges of "bourgeois corruption," "anti-Soviet slander," and "retrogressive counter-revolution," and corresponding censure and punishment.

Finally, every sentient, dutiful American citizen knows that to criticize Jews as a group, Jewish culture, Jewish behavior patterns, the alleged Holocaust, etc., is to partake of "immoral, anti-Semitic racism." Carefully nurtured by the public media, the taboo on criticizing Jewry is deeply lodged in the consciousness of the great majority of Americans, directly influencing their acceptance or rejection of criticisms of Jewish attitudes and behavior, irrespective of the truth or falsity of such claims.​Is direct criticism of the Jews anti-Semitism, and, by implication, morally and politically illegitimate, and thus unworthy of serious examination? If not, what is the true meaning of the label "anti-Semitic" applied to such criticism?This paper is directed toward those who harbor the following beliefs:

Criticism of the Jewish people, Jewish culture and behavior, etc., is synonymous with immoral racism;

At best this criticism is only to be tolerated due to First Amendment protection of free speech, or, at worst, to be censured and censored.

May the psychic chains of these opponents of taboo-free speech be broken. (continued on the next page)

From: 'The Student Revisionists' website"There is no label more feared by prominent Gentiles than "anti-Semite." To receive this label is to kiss one's career goodbye. Well, sometimes a good old-fashioned, Marlon-Brandoesque retraction might save a career, but not without permanent damage. All politicians, journalists, stock brokers, lawyers, etc., had better know which side their bread is buttered on. Most of them do, which is how they make it to such positions in the first place. Many revisionists, even, preferring to remain apolitical, will simply deny anti-Semitic motives, and move on. This is legitimate, so long as one does not give tacit recognition to the absurd concept in the process. We at the SRRS choose to challenge this hollow accusation head-on.

We have recently discovered Paul Grubach's excellent article "A Critique of the Charge of Anti-Semitism," which perfectly outlines the problems we have with the concept.[...]

Also, the following is a passage from Neil Camberly's John Stuart Mill, Speech Prohibition, and "Neo-Nazism."

"Anti-Semitism" is a word the Jews have developed to describe speech that is critical of Jewry. It is used in almost exactly the same way the word 'scapegoating' is used: to render Jews immune to criticism (continued on the next page).​​